“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised…”
Why would God be angry at the blind or at those held captive to the corrupt nature? Why would God expect those that are unable to be righteous, to be righteous? Further, why would God be angry at them for what they are unable to do? Righteousness is only in and through Christ, as there is only one name given by which a man might be saved and that is Jesus Christ the Righteous. So as for those not in Christ and ignorant of the gospel, why would God expect them to be righteous outside of Christ? If righteousness only comes from God, and it does, why would God be angry at sinful man for not having what can only come from God Himself? Some may state that infants are condemned in Adam, but are infants responsible? Can the act of Adam be held against infants or us, as if we played a part in it? Paul speaks of the principle of sin in the flesh and that man is unable to overcome its impulses and leadings, but in order to state that God has wrath on man for this, suggests that God is unaware of this. Or worse, that God is aware and is angry at man without a just cause. Since when does God ignore facts and reality itself? Does God state that unsaved man from birth onward does not meet God’s standards and it makes no difference as to the reasons why man does not?
Limited atonement Calvinism has God being angry at depraved man for no just reason. Can the depraved be righteous? The answer is of course not. This leaves God just as much without a basis for wrath as it does a parent of a newborn being wrathful because the infant does not know the law or righteousness. It portrays God as being significantly less reasonable and rational than the average human, even the unsaved. The unlimited atonement is the exact same way. Being an object of infinite wrath for simply being created as to the inner man, and born as to the body (of which God Himself plays a more significant part than the mother). If that isn’t a maximally overly severe God, then there is no such thing. For it is impossible to portray God as being more severe than to have infinite wrath aimed at infants. Infants are the epitome of the state of not being responsible for their state and condition, for nothing can be held against them. Are infants righteous? No, but that cannot be held against them, as in reality we know they are not responsible for that. If one wants to sound like he is psychotic, just try to make infants responsible for the state of total ignorance and inability that they are created and born in. It simply cannot be principally done, it is impossible.
The basics of law and reason are not applied to God, and this is done on purpose by false teachers. False teachers specialize in attempting to make a clearly psychotic depiction of God as appearing just and lawful… to make the insane seem like it is sane through unprincipled rationalizations and pseudo law. God having wrath on the totally unable and ignorant, even infants, knowing they cannot meet His standards, is clearly an unjust depiction of God. Do you expect infants to be righteous? Do you expect the ignorant to be knowledgeable, without providing them knowledge first? Do you expect sheep to not need a shepherd and to defend themselves against wolves, coyotes and mountain lions? Righteousness and saved are different words for the same state. Does God expect unsaved man to be the equivalent of saved from birth? Since man cannot deliver himself from the mess he is born and lives in, obviously the man has need of God, and because of this reality and truth of the matter, God does not have wrath of those held captive to sin and ignorance. Willful disobedience is another thing, but even so, there are measures of disobedience and varying degrees of punishment. But even then sin has to be optional or under a man’s control, such as believers. However, I am not talking about believers after they are saved, I am talking about the unsaved man who cannot be righteous, though he may desire it. The most basic sense of reason, right and wrong, and principles of law are not attributed to God by false teachers. This is why they must go on rambling rationalizations and use false premises to try and make a psychotic God appear as normal, or even to be praised. If the God you praise is psychotic, you may thank the false teacher who taught you for that.